Government, Taxes, and Sex....

[Rotobeast]

I thought that'd grab your attention.


So, I thought this would be fun to get opinions on.

https://nkilsdonkgervais.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/when-men-pay-taxes-women-become-promiscuous/comment-page-1/

Quote:When Men Pay Taxes, Women Become Promiscuous.
Nicolas Kilsdonk-Gervais
May 4, 2017 4 Minutes

Since the last century, the unprecedented growth in the budget of Western governments has radically changed gender dynamics. This expansion of the government was caused by women’s right to vote, and women’s subsequent voting patterns. The resulting multiplication of public services has progressively replaced men’s traditional role, which alleviated the complementarity and interdependence of men and women at the individual level. Yet, men are, as a group, still the sole providers of tax money. 
The transfer of dependence of women from a man, to the government, affected promiscuity values. Women’s sexual attitudes vary according to their perceived economic dependence, both at the cultural level, and at the individual level. Women’s promiscuity attitudes depends on what they can obtain in exchange for sex within a given environment.
In essence, when men support the government, women’s sexual attitudes loosen. 

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE & THE SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT
Few people seem to acknowledge the fact that feminism is a political ideology that is primarily aimed at reshaping our legal system. The equality that feminism pursues is defined by equality of rights, which are granted by the government. As such, it has always been a doctrine directly tied to the government and its authority. 
The voting patterns of women since the suffrage movement have been identical throughout the Western world: women vote for bigger governments, that provide more entitlements. In the United States, 10 years after women started voting, the government had doubled in size (source). And since then, women have always voted for bigger, more powerful political platforms with more benefits (source).

As you can see, WWI barely changed the government’s size. Women’s right to vote doubled it in 10 years.

 THE GOVERNMENT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH TO WOMEN
A big government orchestrates the wealth redistribution from men to women, for two reasons. The first being that government services disproportionately benefit women. The second being that as a group, only men contribute to support the government. 
Indeed, women are the primary beneficiaries of governmental programs. Women use more education services (source). Women receive income support the most. Women have paid maternity leave (source). Women receive child support (source). Women receive alimony (source). Most public sector employees are women (source). Women have shelters (source). Women use health services more often (source). Women benefit from billions in feminist programs, campaigns, lobbies, and laws. 
And most importantly, these are services that women use (source). 
While the government steadily increases in size due to women’s voting patterns, the government is ironically financed only by men. In a fiscal contribution study, researchers have found that women use so much services and work so little that they cost, on average, $150,000! On the other hand, men pay enough taxes to reimburse the services that they use (source). 

That’s a gender gap that needs to be addressed.
Since as a group, only men pay taxes, and most services are used by women, the government serves as a re-distributor of men’s money into services and money for women.
The woman is free from the man, but as a group, women are still completely dependent on men. Men are still the providers of society, but instead of having full autonomy over their money, the government takes a large chunk of it to finance services that will mostly be used by women. 

SEXUAL MARKETS
The sexual value of women fluctuates according to the basic market rules: supply and demand. That is why women’s sexual attitudes vary radically around the world, while men’s stay constant (source). Because their sexual value is determined by the local market. Women use their sexual value as a currency for social exchange (source). For instance, historically, men used to obtain a woman’s sexuality in exchange for being a lifelong provider. 
In a society where women are not entitled to financial entitlements, women are motivated to keep their sexual value at the highest to have a more valuable exchange currency. Men will be more willing to invest in a family when they have paternity certainty.
In a recent experiment, researchers from the Brunel University found correlations between women’s perceived financial dependence and her anti-promiscuity values (source). The more women felt like they were dependent financially, the more they endorsed anti-promiscuity values. This was also found at the state level. At the state level, median female income was strongly related to promiscuity morality. 

We could extrapolate these results at the national level. It is common knowledge that the most feminist countries (e.g., Canada, Sweden), have the highest tax rates (53% and 57% respectively) in the entire world. 

GOVERNMENT SIZE & SEXUAL MARKETS
As the government grew in size, it assumed men’s traditional social role. Put another way, the government is now in charge of the responsibilities that men took to be valuable to women.
Bodyguard. Provider. The state can do it a thousands times better than any man. While the state obtains more resources from men, men lose opportunities to be a valuable partner. In the West, children are extremely dependent on the government, and completely independent of their father. In a child’s life, from neonatal health services, to daycare, to kindergarten, to primary school, to high school, to college, to university—men are completely useless, aside from the fact that they are the ones supporting these services. 
When men pay taxes, they become useless to both women and children, at least on the individual level. Men have no exchange currency that isn’t outbid by the government. This leads to the loosening of the sexual morals, because women have nothing to exchange their sexuality for. 

CONCLUSION
Women’s agency as a group has transferred their need for a provider from men, to the government. This has consequently alleviated any obligation to be valuable to men in order to obtain men’s resources… including the historical tradition of ensuring men paternity certainty. 
This is a bitter reminder that sex is never free. When money isn’t regulated, sex becomes regulated. When sex isn’t regulated, it’s because money is.  
This is why there are so many feminist, communist women. Deep down, they know that when money isn’t a viable currency, their body will be the only currency. 
What, you never noticed the link between communism and female promiscuity?

Antifa girl, porn actress and communist activist. Unsurprisingly, college student too.

[xxlt]

Pure conjecture. He might as well theorize about little green beings from Mars. It is just all made up.

[hollodero]

(07-03-2017, 04:36 AM)xxlt Wrote: Pure conjecture. He might as well theorize about little green beings from Mars. It is just all made up.

I do agree though that not getting ruined, expelled from society and/or stoned for it probably made women more promiscuitive. Apart from that I also rule paternalistic nonsense. Where do you always find this stuff?

[xxlt]

(07-03-2017, 06:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: I do agree though that not getting ruined, expelled from society and/or stoned for it probably made women more promiscuitive. Apart from that I also rule paternalistic nonsense. Where do you always find this stuff?

Rotobeast, where do you find this stuff?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Reads like a Milo wannabe writing for The Onion.

[HarleyDog]

(07-03-2017, 12:01 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I thought that'd grab your attention.


So, I thought this would be fun to get opinions on.

https://nkilsdonkgervais.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/when-men-pay-taxes-women-become-promiscuous/comment-page-1/

It's official. My wife wants me to meet you and punch you in the face. Lol, I say, let's go get a few beers and talk about sports and how bad our lives were do to money hungry sluts in our pasts. Sounds fun lol.

[Dill]

(07-03-2017, 12:01 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I thought that'd grab your attention.


So, I thought this would be fun to get opinions on.

https://nkilsdonkgervais.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/when-men-pay-taxes-women-become-promiscuous/comment-page-1/

LOL an interesting read, Roto.

I think this Hollander has been reading about the Men's Rights Movement.

Some random thoughts:

1. Most of the points made here are driven by movement ideology and diverge quite a bit from the historical record. E.G., the US government stayed relatively the same size during the ten years after 1919. It did not expand appreciably until after the election of FDR, and the cause is pretty clear--the Great Depression. Countries with no women's suffrage, like Germany and Japan, also turned to Keynesian solutions during the Great Depression. Germany's government was already larger, proportionally than that of the US. 

2. Traditional conservatives often characterize the relation between the Democratic Party and minorities in the US as one of mutual dependency: Democrats need votes and so promise services and special considerations from blacks and illegals. That is why they "love" immigration--more Democratic voters. The long term tendency is then to expand government and drive up taxes as hard working whites pay for lazy minorities and people who shouldn't be in the US. These minorities in turn become dependent upon government for protection and services and so vote Democrat.  So the Democratic Party creates dependency or "modern day slavery."

Mr. Kilsdonk-Gervais has adapted this tactic for the Men's Rights Movement. Over the long term, women vote to make the government their protector/provider, and therefore "bigger," along the way usurping the "traditional" role of men as provider/protector. All manner of evil results, as women are able to leave their "protectors" and provide for themselves. If a guy steps in to "correct" his dependent woman, the government calls it "domestic assault" and intervenes in the privacy of the home. But it does this unequally--or where are all the battered shelters for men? WHAT ABOUT MEN'S EQUALITY!!! At the base of this viewpoint is a very patriarchal anxiety about women's equality and nostalgia for the days when men were "in charge" everywhere--government, business, school, and the home. I guess you could call this "malelash" against feminism. It's about threatened male identity. 

Alternative facts abound.

[Rotobeast]

(07-03-2017, 12:16 PM)xxlt Wrote: Rotobeast, where do you find this stuff?

It was on Facebook, somewhere.
Sorry I don't recall.
It was on a page that I do not subscribe to.

*edit*
I was wrong.
A friend of mine posted it to his wife's page.
I guess he's not getting any, anytime soon.

[Rotobeast]

(07-03-2017, 06:11 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: It's official. My wife wants me to meet you and punch you in the face. Lol, I say, let's go get a few beers and talk about sports and how bad our lives were do to money hungry sluts in our pasts. Sounds fun lol.

If it makes her happy, I'll go along with it. It only hurts for a minute. Does she hate me for introducing it to you, or does she think I believe it ?
Just curious.

[Rotobeast]

(07-03-2017, 08:27 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL an interesting read, Roto.

I think this Hollander has been reading about the Men's Rights Movement.

Some random thoughts:

1. Most of the points made here are driven by movement ideology and diverge quite a bit from the historical record. E.G., the US government stayed relatively the same size during the ten years after 1919. It did not expand appreciably until after the election of FDR, and the cause is pretty clear--the Great Depression. Countries with no women's suffrage, like Germany and Japan, also turned to Keynesian solutions during the Great Depression. Germany's government was already larger, proportionally than that of the US. 

2. Traditional conservatives often characterize the relation between the Democratic Party and minorities in the US as one of mutual dependency: Democrats need votes and so promise services and special considerations from blacks and illegals. That is why they "love" immigration--more Democratic voters. The long term tendency is then to expand government and drive up taxes as hard working whites pay for lazy minorities and people who shouldn't be in the US. These minorities in turn become dependent upon government for protection and services and so vote Democrat.  So the Democratic Party creates dependency or "modern day slavery."

Mr. Kilsdonk-Gervais has adapted this tactic for the Men's Rights Movement. Over the long term, women vote to make the government their protector/provider, and therefore "bigger," along the way usurping the "traditional" role of men as provider/protector. All manner of evil results, as women are able to leave their "protectors" and provide for themselves.  If a guy steps in to "correct" his dependent woman, the government calls it "domestic assault" and intervenes in the privacy of the home. But it does this unequally--or where are all the battered shelters for men? WHAT ABOUT MEN'S EQUALITY!!! At the base of this viewpoint is a very patriarchal anxiety about women's equality and nostalgia for the days when men were "in charge" everywhere--government, business, school, and the home. I guess you could call this "malelash" against feminism. It's about threatened male identity. 

Alternative facts abound.

Thanks for making that connection. I knew nothing about the "Men's Rights Movement".....wow.

[xxlt]

(07-04-2017, 02:15 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It was on Facebook, somewhere.
Sorry I don't recall.
It was on a page that I do not subscribe to.

*edit*
I was wrong.
A friend of mine posted it to his wife's page.
I guess he's not getting any, anytime soon.

Well, let's wait until the market weighs in before we make forecasts like that!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-04-2017, 09:30 AM)xxlt Wrote: Well, let's weight until the market weighs in before we make forecasts like that!

I guess he didn't pay his taxes.